triples. This suggests that many more New Yorkers are financially vulnerable than what the poverty statis- tics alone would suggest. Notably, the highest proportion of New Yorkers live between 100% and 200% of the poverty line, accounting for nearly 1 in 3 adults and 2 in 5 children. This is particularly striking because income transfers and safety net programs tend to target those below or just above the poverty line, meaning that many New Yorkers liv- ing between 100% and 200% of the poverty line are ineligible for assistance from programs like SNAP or the EITC. As we will show next, this leads to situations in which families find themselves in the difficult position of facing high levels of material hardship, yet are unable to access the social programs meant to alleviate them.
Distribution of New Yorkers at different levels of the SPM poverty line (2022) Figure 3.2
0-100% SPM 100%-200% SPM 200%-300% SPM 300%+ SPM
33% 2,747,000
23% 1,580,000
25% 2,088,000
23% 1,950,000
Overall
31% 2,063,000
19% 1,244,000
28% 1,848,000
23% 1,531,000
Adult
41% 684,000
20% 336,000
14% 240,000
25% 419,000
Child
0%
20%
60%
80%
100%
40%
Source: Annual Poverty Tracker survey data, second through fifth Poverty Tracker cohorts.
How do policy effects vary with respect to the poverty line? Comparing family resources before and after government transfers reveals the role of social policies in helping families afford basic needs. Here, we show the role that government transfers play in increasing New Yorkers’ resources depending on their income level, as well as how effective these policies are at rais- ing New Yorkers above different threshold levels, with a particular focus on 200% of the poverty line. Figure 3.3 shows the share of New Yorkers (both adults and children) below different thresholds of the poverty line, before and after counting income from government transfers, which include tax credits, cash transfers such as welfare and unemployment insurance, and in-kind transfers such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These results demonstrate how government transfers have a much greater anti-poverty effect on the lowest-income households (those in the 50% to 100% SPM threshold range) than those in the 150% to 200% range.
30 THE STATE OF POVERTY AND DISADVANTAGE IN NEW YORK CITY VOL. 6
Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator